[geocentrism] Re: Question Begging
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
I have already addresed these ...... no nothing you put forward or addressed
can or does demonstate HC's plausability without assuming it first, this is
your underlining prmeise which is HC is plausable because you can interprete
data in a HC way even though you have no reason to do so.....you dont seem to
see that you are arguing yourself in circles......
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, there are two
fallacies in your presentation, because they ignore reasonable evidence.
This evidence is secure mathmatically and mechanically irregardless of
whether gravity is this or that, and whether mass is this or that.
1. Orbiting bodies follow specific laws of mass speed and distance. This
is proven on earth by practical experiment, easily demonstrated. no experiment
you can perform on earth can/ has shown that the not without begging the
question of 1. what is gravity and 2. where is the moment of motion in the
universe which the question you are attempting to address
2. Using these same calculations and knowing (even if roughly), the mass
of the earth, satellites orbits prove these calculations. They are so accurate
that they actually correct the mass of the earth to the nth degree. The
distances are accurately confirmed by Radar. Given the earth orbits the sun the
weight distances and speeds all conform to the same formula as for calculating
the moons orbit and our local satellites. This the mass of the sun is further
confirmed by known configurations of the other planets, re distance weight
orbit speed etc. , and no geocentrist denies they orbit the sun.
The only way, and this is the only way, that the earth could be static in the
above scenario, is for there to be an aether holding "elastically" the whole
universe and rotating it around our central world, in such a manner as to allow
all the natural laws of orbits to be maintained. This is a hypotheses which
supports both systems. You get no where denying what science can see and
measure. That was the way flat earthers went into oblivion.
This relative motion of aether and heliocentrism, brings to mind the
mechanical miracle of the universal gear used to drive the rear wheels of a
motor vehicle... Amazing..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:39 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question Begging
The whole concept of larger objects going around smaller objects begs the
question without knowledge of what and where the center of mass for all the
objects in question (the universe) is in the first place...must start wtih what
you have not what you imagine...?. to start with a model with no motion to the
earth is not a proof for or against earth motion nor does it assume anything?.
it is only the logical position from which to begin the experimental and
theoretical process necessary to ascertain any proof for or against. The model
it self is not proof it is only a premise or foundation for the discovery
process. As stated may times one must logically begin with what you have not
with what you do not have since proof for motion is the question any model that
assumes the motion or interprets the data in terms of motion that is used to
support or build a case for motion on is a circular fallacy. Where taking
observations and conducting experiments with no assumptions of
motion is simply beginning with what you have?.. what you have dose not
include any argument or justification for incorporating that Idea it into ones
interpretations of observations. ..to look out and see other objects in the
heavens move does not tell you what is absolute motion or what or whether or
not you would and could feel/ detect those motions if you were there?..and
since you are not there?..?..think about that for a while?
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: It's begging the question
twice.. who says the sun is heavier, it could be lighter
( no pun intended ) ? If you could capture fire and then weigh it, I bet it
would
not weigh very much.
Even if it were heavier, don't you think God could say, "I'll just create
this heavy
sun over here and make it orbit the Earth?"
It's begging the question twice because the assumption is being made that the
sun is heavier than the Earth when "logic" would say otherwise, and also the
assumption
is being made that a far-away heavy object can't orbit a lighter object.
I would even question the distance to the sun and the size of the sun.
Bernie
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Its not begging the question.. simple logic that a lighter mass
orbits a larger heavier mass, and not the reverse, as easily demonstrated on
earth, tells us that heliocentric cosmology is the most probable, and rational
explanation. The contrary which appears irrational and against natural laws as
we experience them is much more difficult to justify, requiring extremely
different approaches.
If it were not for the Bible and the Word of God, none of us here would ever
have any reason to doubt the MS explanation unless of course we were of the
flat earth variety. Yet even here I am unfair. Some of the scientific proofs
offered at the time, which I have read concerning the flat earth were extremely
ingenious, and still fool me. Neville reminded me of it in his description of
the working of the resolution of the human eye.
That (heliocentric cosmology) is the "stumbling block" which "confounds the
wise.....that seeing they shall not perceive" .
We have no justification in condemning the wisdom of the world, given that
they do not receive the Grace of this perception, which puts we who are the
fools, on the right and true course. Yet given that, we have not arrived at any
scientific proof that is any more reasonable than that which MS has proposed.
Perhaps that is the wisdom of God, that they must find their own way, without
any co-ercion from us.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question Begging
Excellent.....since there is no Observation or experience that the earth is
moving without assuming that the earth is indeed moving (begging the question)
therefore the only logical course to begin from is a model earth absent of
movement and then attempt to prove or demonstrate any movement if any?..of
course all the experiments would lead one to the conclusion that is in fact not
in motion without begging the question.....It is only via the assumption of its
movement which was never demonstrated to begin with that one can even begin to
explain away the observations and experience that are consistent with the only
logical positions to start from namely that the earth is without any
demonsratable motion ??..therefore to assume that the earth does in fact move
is to build upon a foundation of sand and or suggest that it is or must be
moving because it could be in some theoretical and or imaginational framework
and then to call it science is not only a circular fallacy but
is......well quite silly!
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: To beg the question: to pass
over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled; to
assume as proven the very thing one is trying to prove.
or:
To pass over or ignore the question of
"is the Earth moving" by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume
that the Earth is moving when trying to disprove
that the Earth is not moving.
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007
11:27 AM
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 16/03/2007
12:12 PM
Other related posts:
